LANDIS & ARN



LANDIS ARN & JAYNES, P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 ST. JOHN STREET, SUITE 321

PORTLAND, MAINE 04102

207-775-6371

Some Questions and Answers about The Supreme Court’s 06/26/2017 Decision to Review the Travel Ban Case*

What did the court decide about President Trump’s travel ban?

The court did two things: It agreed to evaluate the ban next term, and, in the meantime, the court overturned the decisions of lower courts, saying that Mr. Trump’s administration could enforce its immigration ban against certain people while it waited for the Supreme Court to hear arguments and decide the case.

Does that mean that the president can block everyone from coming from the six countries he identified as dangerous — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen?

No. The justices agreed with the appeals courts that certain people should be allowed to come to the United States, as long as they have what the court called “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Who would that be?

That is likely to be subject to interpretation and litigation. The court detailed several categories of foreign nationals who should be allowed into the United States: 1) people with a “close familial relationship” to someone in the United States; 2) students admitted to a university in the United States; 3) workers who have accepted an offer of employment from a company in the United States; and 4) lecturers invited to speak to an American audience.

But who qualifies for each of those categories will be up to the administration, and individuals denied entry might challenge those decisions in the courts.

Who remains blocked from coming to the United States after the court’s ruling?

The court basically said that foreign nationals with no “bona fide relationship” to the United States do not have the same rights and can be banned from entry. The justices wrote that the government’s authority to ban entry into the United States for national security reasons were “undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”

What about refugees coming from places like Syria or other war-torn countries?

The court imposed the same rules for refugees as it did for those seeking entry from the six aforementioned countries. Refugees who already have some connection to the United States may not be summarily blocked from entry; those who have no prior connection to the United States may be blocked from entry.

Are there still big questions?

Yes. The definition of a “bona fide relationship” is not clear yet, according to opponents of the ban. For example, if a vacationer has a reservation at a hotel in the United States, does that qualify as a “bona fide relationship?” That kind of question will not be known for sure until the government blocks people from coming and the cases are taken to the courts.

Is this a final ruling, then?

Not yet. The court’s ruling on the travel ban only applies for the period of time between now and when the justices make a final ruling, which might not come until late fall. The court agreed to hear arguments in the case in its next term, which begins in October. At that time, the court could endorse its current view of the travel ban or it could do something different.

*Excerpts from 06/26/2017 New York Times

Landis Arn & Jaynes’ initial take away from the court’s decision: There is likely going to be a great deal of confusion, hardship and inconvenience at US airports this summer as USCBP officers raise questions about whether people from the six countries entering the U.S. have the requisite “bona fide relationships” with the U.S.

-----------------------

PETER J. LANDIS

pjl@

P

FAX 207-773-3096



L

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download